Quote Originally Posted by Gandalf View Post
Quote Originally Posted by VictorCharlie View Post
Or isn't it more likely that your argument is in fact just peculiar and it is you who are expressing the view that your opinion counts for more than those of most scientists and potentially the future of the rest of humanity.
For someone that rails against religion, I find your take on this pretty amusing. You are one of the boards premiere skeptics but on this you question nothing. The Earth has warmed and cooled multiple times w/o any help from man. The only science that is settled is that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age and that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. The relationship between man-made emissions and the most recent warming trend is still largely not understood. If 98% of all my predictive analysis on a topic was wrong, you, me and everyone else would come to a natural conclusion that my basic understanding of the topic was flawed. For some reason AGW doesn't get this kind of treatment despite the entire climatology discipline scratching their head about the last 15 years and all their models being utter failures. Once science is politicized the way "climate change" has been it stops being about data and empirical evidence and starts being about a zero-sum game. To work in my own quote, Mark Twain once said "It is easier to fool someone than convince them they were fooled." Keep up the end of the world fear mongering though, W and Obama would be proud.
There is a big difference between science and religion. The latter is hocus pocus and fairy stories, whilst the former is on the whole carefully researched investigation. Obviously I have far less time for the 'evidence' of a bunch of primitively informed men, than I do of people who carry out research and do so following careful checks and balances. Unlike religion, science cannot conjure up magic and Gods, but it can formulate reasoned explanations for the world around us and of course I trust that more than religion which is flawed to its core.

You disagree with most of the worlds science, yet what are your credentials? I am not a scientist, I know about my field and I can talk politics as politics is baby chess. However, I will not pretend to know better than the clear consensus of educated professionals trained in their field (not politics or economics which are bought). You are a tiny minority of the educated opinion, so what makes you know so much more than them. Where are your research papers? In what journals are they published?

Logic would assume that the opinions of the tiny minority of corrupted minds are bought by exploitative and deranged lobby interest groups which do invest significant sums of money into their own self preservation. Unless you have invested in nasty energy forms, I don't see what the argument is. You would sooner play the dice with the overwhelming consensus of research and opinion.
You clearly don't understand what the science is on this issue or what I believe but much like a religious believer have no shortage of faith in the politically charged talking points you are being fed.

Interesting article on confirmation bias
Climate Change and Confirmation Bias - Reason.com

But just in case you need an actual scientist's take on it,

Can We Trust the U.N.'s IPCC Climate Models? - Reason.com